mark_pipeline

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates a write action through 'Record' and lists status values, but it does not mention overwrite semantics, idempotency, permissions, or what effect a mark has on downstream pipeline behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single compact sentence with no filler. The action and status vocabulary are front-loaded, and every part of the sentence contributes useful information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return-value documentation is not required. However, provider semantics and detail usage are left implicit, and there is no behavioral context for a write operation, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent to infer.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0% description coverage and only exposes bare string types, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning to the status parameter by listing the four allowed values, but it leaves provider and detail entirely unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Record') with a clear resource ('operator pipeline mark') and enumerates the exact allowed values: ready, degraded, blocked, or maintenance. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling pipeline_status tool, which reads pipeline state rather than writing a mark.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The intended use is implied through the verb 'Record' and the status vocabulary, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer mark_pipeline over alternatives like pipeline_status or invalidate_pipeline_probe_cache. It provides clear context, yet no when-not-to-use guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.